‘While some in the blogosphere are arguing that the recent pause or stagnation is coming close to ‘falsifying’ the climate models, this is an incorrect interpretion of these results. The issue is the fitness-for-purpose of the climate models for climate change detection and attribution on decadal to multi-decadal timescales.

‘In view of the climate model underestimation of natural internal variability on multi-decadal time scales and failure to simulate the recent 15+ years ‘pause’, the issue of fitness for purpose of climate models for detection and attribution on these time scales should be seriously questioned. And these deficiencies should be included in the ‘expert judgment’ on the confidence levels associated with the IPCC’s statements on attribution.’

E.G. at #86: you do understand that the paper you quote says that because Australia flooded and the water couldn’t run off to the sea it contributed to a drop in SLR, don’t you? So what was the point that you were trying to make?

As is now usual, you have made no substantive response to *any* of the points I raised on the entire of the previous page of comments. Data denial about ARGO (argument from ignorance; from incredulity; a dual logical fallacy) is not a substantive response. Even a *single* logical fallacy invalidates the argument. You have in effect said absolutely nothing at all.

This is a standard problem with denialist rhetoric. It is empty. So you are going to have to try a great deal harder here. At the moment, it is all cock-waving and swagger.

Have you got a reference for this btw?

Earlier in the Holocene 2.5 – 7.5Ky ago the sea level along the NSW coast was 1.0 – 1.5 m higher than at present.

Curry is as full of nonsense as some of you lot. <a href="http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/what-will-the-simulations-do-next/Look carefully at the following animation of two runs of the same climate model. Look at the multi-decadal trend vs the decadal variability. That’s what this silly non-argument boils down to. Denialist misdirection about a transient slow-down in the rate of tropospheric warming modulated by variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake. It won’t make any difference to the centennial trend and that is what matters

The problem for you old son is that your models are full of shit. i.e. not working.

OK Clever cloggs, explain why the models aren’t working. This implies that you will have to specify which models you are complaining about.

Also explain why if we ignored all climate models, we would still know that anthropogenic climate change is under way.

Go back and seriously address that core issue. Unfamiliarity with MY literature is no excuse. That’s your problem living in an echo chamber… It’s projection.

At last some truth as you own up to projection.

It would appear that your echo chamber is very small.

Now this is a very telling comment:

So whaddya gonna do – what’s compelling value proposition for the investment when we have massive disease problems with HIV, TB and malaria. Ongoing problems with food security, militarism, change of economic power to Asia etc. You want to bet everything on black or number 42 (AGW) do you?

Aha! The Lomborg strategy.

Do you not realise that global warming and climate change will make all those problems many times worse especially as each will amplify the effects of others.

Good luck adapting to spread of diseases as the globe warms and species migrate and change their range when all ports, and many airports they also being near sea level, are flooded inhibiting the flow of ALL goods.

How do you think the security of nations is going to be ensured when mass migration takes place from populations displaced by flooding, drought, crop failures, collapse of trophic webbs and pollution with this latter exacerbating that ecological collapse.. Mass migration patterns could be interesting as new routes for refugees open up as Arctic ice melts.

And I have only scratched the surface of the problems that will be caused by a warming world.

Now WRT Sandy, you denigrated the mention of that but perhaps you could describe the factors that caused it to develop in the way that it did.

If what has been displayed here is the sum of your cerebral processes then it sadly portrays a lack of joined up thinking.

You are a low life scum BBD and although I can’t vouch for Boris, my mate Luke is a fine adversary and more knowledgable on climate science than you will ever be.

More lies and delusion from our retired sports writer.

* * *
The graph isn’t fantasy. It is simple two model runs. Two *instances* of something. Here in the real world we run only one instance of climate. If you were smarter than plankton, you would understand the point Ed Hawkins (a climate scientist) is making. But you choose instead to deny.

“After years of struggle through the legal system, the government approved the dam construction in June 2011 as part of their goal to reduce their Carbon Dioxide emissions by 40% by 2020 (The Brazilian National Government 2011).”

You don’t get it little Chek, what a surprise! I’m not in favour of the dam, but it’s the likes of you and what you and Deltoid represent that made it possible for politicians to take this action against human carbon emissions.

But hey fellas, keep up the battle against the imaginary but very evil right wing Elders of fossil fuel obstructing climate sciene and CO2 mitigation.

Wasn’t Gordy supposed to be doing some checking on the Idso Clan and their lying websites? Wasn’t he supposed to be reporting back on their numerous links to vested interests? Wasn’t he supposed to acknowledge that he was (yet again) utterly wrong about the MWP, which was never a synchronous, globally warm event?

Is Gordy just pretending that (as usual) he has had his clock cleaned? That would be intellectual dishonesty of the most blatant kind.

Olaus Petri inhabits an alternative reality in which people who understand physics are evil and responsible for poorly-conceived hydro projects. Meanwhile the vested interests in the energy industry warping public policy and endangering the future of billions for centuries to come are not evil.

I’m not in favour of the dam, but it’s the likes of you and what you and Deltoid represent that made it possible for politicians to take this action against human carbon emissions.

You’re confused Olap. Carbon emissions are but one component. You’ll find that increasing energy demand is the main driver of a complex situation beyond your simple-minded sloganeering. It’s hard to tell developing nations not to develop, and even more so when that development eats into a global scale carbon sink.

Ecuador for instance attempted to raise money to NOT drill for oil in its Yasuni national park in its part of the Amazon, but the initiative hasn’t worked and now the oil companies are champing at the bit

When the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, wants a law passed, it has all the resources to make that happen.

The organization is known for helping to advance corporate interests by writing and then pushing to pass conservative legislation at the state level. With funding to the tune of $500,000 from billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch’s foundations from 2005-2011, and $1.4 million from Exxon Mobil this past decade, it shouldn’t be a surprise that ALEC has had many successes in its 40 years of existence. ALEC has most notably pushed “Stand Your Ground” and “Right-to-Work” legislation through state legislatures across the country. The organization has also created model legislation with intended loopholes that allow energy companies to withhold names of certain chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

All of the Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee question the science behind climate change. Fueled by millions in donations from the fossil fuel industry, on Thursday, these Senators used the committee as a way to simply parrot the tired talking points of Koch funded organizations and industry leaders, denouncing what 97 percent of climate scientists have agreed on.

New internal documents obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reveal new methods that fossil fuel companies, agrochemical interests and corporate lobbying groups will influence certain state policies in the coming months through the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.

ALEC’s annual meeting is taking place in Chicago this week, just as Common Cause and CMD have filed a complaint to the IRS over ALEC’s corporate-funded “Scholarships” for state legislators–ALEC is a tax exempt non-profit despite their mission of facilitating an exchange of company-crafted laws with state legislators in closed-door meetings.

ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture task force is drafting new model bills on behalf of its members like Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and Peabody. ALEC’s anti-environmental agenda in Chicago is available for viewing (see E&E PM and Earthtechling). These are the new model bills ALEC and its energy, chemical and agricultural interests are finalizing this week:

.

[1]There are a number of similar parrots contributing on this thread isn’t that right Luke and gordolocks.

But you’re a dour lot but just like I have experienced in a few drive by shootings at Nova’s. But at least if you keep the sledges down unlike at Wattsupyerbum you won’t be snipped over there.

But yes – you’re a sour lot that swings at everything. Loosen up.

Importantly only Vince had the guts to have a go over to Nova’s and have a go and copped a fair bit – good try Vince – however KuknKat (aka kookers, Kat Krap and Kooky Kat) did him like a dinner – and where were you guys in support.

“Good luck adapting to spread of diseases as the globe warms and species migrate and change their range when all ports, and many airports they also being near sea level, are flooded inhibiting the flow of ALL goods.”

_ WHAT – we can’t engineer or cope with 0.3-0.5 m by the end of the century. Laughing !

Diseases – Reiter and malaria remember – oh the shame.

“How do you think the security of nations is going to be ensured when mass migration takes place from populations displaced by flooding, drought, crop failures, collapse of trophic webbs and pollution with this latter exacerbating that ecological collapse.. Mass migration patterns could be interesting as new routes for refugees open up as Arctic ice melts.” OR NOT – all based on post modernist shit science of the worst order – take GCM that doesn’t work – add to shitty species extinction model – publish in soft receptive journal. All these problems you list exist now, regardless of climate drivers and you’re focussed on one “maybe” aspect of the problem based on the models THAT ARE NOW FALSIFIED.

Try to remember, Luke, that being wittered at by numpties is tedious. So why bother visiting idiot goat-fucks like Nova and WTFUWT? Nobody knows what they are talking about, moderation is usually hostile, and making any headway amid all the ignorance, buffoonery and denial is impossible.

My opening post here unanswered. The fundamental issue of modelling the global climate has now failed the most basic test – and all you can do is divert. The emperor has no clothes.

Why bother visiting idiot goat-fucks – well Jo and Davey aren’t that dumb – smart enough to rate the pants off you lot and actually control the debate. Almost every day. And where are you here – on an endless open thread – WOW !

Keep on theme at Nova and the border guards won’t snip you. But I suspect you’re not up to it. These guys are pretty well armed to the teeth. Kooky Kat saw Vince off in a few hours.

The big problem with all the palaeo work you’re in love with is that catastrophic astrophysical or volcanogenic events, Milankovich cycling or solar variability either individually or collectively would have dominated over CO2. Untangle that ! It’s all about framing the question.

Prediction of GMT – wrong
Improvement of models in 20 years – bugger all
Tropo hotspot – not there
Evap trend – wrong way
Antarctic sea ice – growing (what a bugger)
Deep ocean heat – statistically dodgy (IMHO of course)
Averaging multi-model ensembles – sounds skanky and so you get stuff like rainfall could be 10% greater or 20% less
Resolving extreme event behaviour needs more grunt and probably new physics at micro-scale
No real trends in droughts or floods.
Community divided on tropical cyclone behaviour
Do we understand what caused the MWP or LIA – probably not (not well).

Please address my earlier comments properly. You are being evasive. I know you cannot defend your position, but I want to see you try.

In summary:

Earlier in the Holocene 2.5 – 7.5Ky ago the sea level along the NSW coast was 1.0 – 1.5 m higher than at present.

No reference despite request. Also note that pointing to any regional change in sea level is irrelevant to the point of dishonesty. Global mean sea level has *not* fallen by 1.5m since the mid-Holocene. But global MSL was at least 5m above Holocene MSL during the Eemian which requires a substantial collapse of the WAIS. Unless you can account for ~3m MSL increase some other way. Which it so happens you can’t. Your attempt to avoid acknowledging this was both clumsy and intellectually dishonest.

#18 Demonstrate error in Rohling13 and Hansen13 or accept the paleoclimate-derived estimates for S.

#23 Familiarise yourself with Cenozoic climate change before blethering further about Milankovitch.

#25 No other forcing has changed as much as CO2 forcing during the Cenozoic. This provides an over-arching mechanism that explains the general cooling trend from ~50Ma. It demonstrates the role of CO2 forcing in climate change on a geological scale.

#64 Retract your rubbish about Rignot.

Then we can move on. Your rubbish about the models has been dealt with upthread, so repeating it is pointless.

The big problem with all the palaeo work you’re in love with is that catastrophic astrophysical or volcanogenic events, Milankovich cycling or solar variability either individually or collectively would have dominated over CO2.

Spencer is listed as a “scientific advisor” for an organization called the “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance” (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is “a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development.”

In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including six that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years. [13]

Bullshit Bunk and Dickhead – you’re a flake – models are falsified and you’re just sitting around with a bunch of losers on an extinct backwater blog atoll. Have a blog sook or prosecute your argument.

But really nobody gives a fuck what you think. You’re a legend in your own stinky little bedroom having a Walter Mitty moment.

You’re shit scared on engaging your real critics over on Nova etc. Sitting around with your criminally intense back-slappers having a circle jerk in obscurity.

TH: A lot of these metrics that we develop come from computer models. How should people treat the kind of info that comes from computer climate models?

Hansen: I think you would have to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Because if computer models were in fact the principal basis for our concern, then you have to admit that there are still substantial uncertainties as to whether we have all the physics in there, and how accurate we have it. But, in fact, that’s not the principal basis for our concern. It’s the Earth’s history-how the Earth responded in the past to changes in boundary conditions, such as atmospheric composition. Climate models are helpful in interpreting that data, but they’re not the primary source of our understanding.

TH: Do you think that gets misinterpreted in the media?

Hansen: Oh, yeah, that’s intentional. The contrarians, the deniers who prefer to continue business as usual, easily recognize that the computer models are our weak point. So they jump all over them and they try to make the people, the public, believe that that’s the source of our knowledge. But, in fact, it’s supplementary. It’s not the basic source of knowledge. We know, for example, from looking at the Earth’s history, that the last time the planet was two degrees Celsius warmer, sea level was 25 meters higher.

And we have a lot of different examples in the Earth’s history of how climate has changed as the atmospheric composition has changed. So it’s misleading to claim that the climate models are the primary basis of understanding.

Now you are becoming tedious, like many before you, by repeating crank based nonsense

My opening post here unanswered. The fundamental issue of modelling the global climate has now failed the most basic test – and all you can do is divert.

whilst evading direct questions about any specific models you are denigrating. Look up thread.

Meanwhile back at the here and now the models have fucked up.

Meanwhile back at the here and now the models have ME (Luke) fucked up.

There fixed that for you.

As for engaging at Nova, WUWT etc,. it is best not to dive into a pig pen because you will always come out smelling of crap. And that is what you have done Luke, far from livening a place up you have dragged a nasty smell in with your persona – which doesn’t seem all that pleasant at base either. I think you need med’s, or a social life.

Maybe a decent thinking lady friend would do you good or are you a misogynist too.

I can honestly say that you come across as the most unpleasant person I have yet to see here, there have been other strong contenders.

BTW and yes I have completed some personal environmental re-mediation lately. And yourself?

Are your beliefs backed by any published science? Or are they more the product of your belief?”

Lemme see, published work claims that geothermal activity is partially at fault for the galloping glaciers of Greenland. Published work claims that the cental glacial area is GAINING mass while the fringes are losing. Published work shows that BOTH of those trends, galloping glaciers and mass loss, is slowing.

Published work shows that the Himalayan glaciers are NOT losing glacial mass although some are some aren’t.

Published work shows that many glaciers that were “rapidly” losing mass are slowing and some, like Mt. Kilimanjaro have actually REVERSED and are again gaining mass.

The oceans have been rising since the end of the last glaciation.

The Antarctic has been cooling and increasing its sea ice to record levels. Only the western glaciers have been thought to be losing mass. Like Greenland the heat flux from the core is slightly higher underneath the western glacier due to thinner materials below. Yeah, that is all PUBLISHED work.

So, we are left with your OLD alarmist papers that have all been superceded by RECENT observations or simply SANE interpretations of what is actually happening.

As far as the touted POLAR amplification, it has not been happening in the Antarctic for at least 30 years and now the Arctic seems to be turning on you!!

And on he merrily goes, misrepresenting the *cause* of Antarctic sea ice extent increase and asserting that geothermal energy is driving WAIS mass balance loss, a view for which I can find no support at all. He also appears unaware that the Antarctic is not projected to experience polar amplification to the same extent as the Arctic. The Antarctic is, after all, thermally isolated by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and has been for ~34Ma.

And on he merrily goes, misrepresenting the *cause* of Antarctic sea ice extent increase and asserting that geothermal energy is driving WAIS mass balance loss, a view for which I can find no support at all. He also appears unaware that the Antarctic is not projected to experience polar amplification to the same extent as the Arctic. The Antarctic is, after all, thermally isolated by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and has been for ~34Ma.

Gordy, please check the links Lionel A provides above. Do *not* sneer and sigh and look the other way. These sites provide useful information and they have not been sued by the persons and organisations described so we can be reasonably sure that the (referenced) info is sound. Do your background. Research. Check. Build up a confidence index and rate your sources within it. Act like a proper journalist.

Vince @ #61
Good on you for at least making the attempt and having a go.

I must admit, I used to drop in on the whacko blogs (you know who they are) and do the same myself, but a few years ago I found that far from the stupidity cheering me up it just depressed me. As in, what a waste of human life and potential, and why put yourself in the position of witnessing it?.

And anyway, life’s too short to waste on wilful wasters well over the age of consent.

life’s too short to waste on wilful wasters well over the age of consent.

Yup. I used to visit some of those sites – basically to point and laugh. But old jokes get stale, and I’ve not seen anything new for a year or so. Maybe losing the occasionally hilarious buffoonery of the likes of Monckton has blunted their edge or something.

otoh, I’ve a feeling this might be a more or less becalmed period before the storm that the next IPCC report is likely to unleash. (I pity the pre-publication text editors – they know that a typo or two will make it into several thousand pages of reports. They must dread finding out that a number or a word here and there could turn out to be fodder for the gloating and breast-beating crowd.)

‘The new IPCC reports on climate change had essentially sidestepped the issue of Antarctica’s potential contribution to sea level rise. The authors pointed out, rightly, that there was just too much uncertainty to make predictions.’

Yeah – old jokes get stale, and after a while it just gets depressing.

I had previously found everything I posted at Jo Nova’s got moderated out of existence, but they appear to be leaving things this weekend.

Either way, it’s a waste of time – El Gordo here gives us a good indication of what’s going on on the cranks blogs to save us from having to visit them: endless recycling of nonsense.

Incidentally, if anybody was wondering about Luke’s “wiped the floor” you will probably be unsurprised to hear that my pointing out a few solid facts is apparently trumped by, “geothermal activity melting Greenland” and “some glaciers are melting and some are gaining mass”, and “Antarctica is growing”.

‘The new IPCC reports on climate change had essentially sidestepped the issue of Antarctica’s potential contribution to sea level rise. The authors pointed out, rightly, that there was just too much uncertainty to make predictions.’

Incidentally, if anybody was wondering about Luke’s “wiped the floor” you will probably be unsurprised to hear that my pointing out a few solid facts is apparently trumped by, “geothermal activity melting Greenland” and “some glaciers are melting and some are gaining mass”, and “Antarctica is growing”.

I went way over the link limit at #58 – is there a comment showing there starting:

I dutifully pottered over to the DK Corral to see the invincible (sorry) KuhnKat bring Vince up short.

It did make me smile (momentarily), before I lost patience watching Gordon transplant that denier news factoid to WAIS today. Such care with the facts! (Ed Murrow – I know, …who?) must be spinning in his grave like a pulsar..

As a serial lurker here with no relevant scientific background (although possessing what are hopefully adequate critical faculties), I gotta say that nothing that has thus far been posted has convinced me that we should over-turn the now-hundreds of years old scientific position that increasing CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere will increase global temperature and affect climate.

Nor has anything been said that contradicts the position that this will have a devastating impact on the kind of civilisation that humanity has developed over the past ten thousand years.

For those who promulgate the views that these accepted positions are incorrect, you may want to rethink your strategy of relying on the kinds of repetitive, threadbare, scientifically and logically absurd arguments that have to date underpinned your posts.

Either that, or I may start thinking that your point is not to convince through rational argument, but simply to attempt to browbeat, bully and bluster an inconvenient reality into submission. A process that, I fear, will have the usual results.

Well. we have Gordon thinking his mate Luke is far from being a car crash of ill-informed lunacy, and of course “Karen” who doesn’t comprehend the difference between heat and temperature. Oh, and the Scandinavian Troll Collective’s Olouse railing against ‘Greens’, except when they don’t do enough.

Ic an only think they imagine consistency and knowing stuff just slows them down.

El gordo @ 82
The real debate, as you know, is what to do about the increasingly evident effects of AGW, not on whether it is happening, nor whether it is caused by something other than anthropogenically released CO2.

Global surface temperature has not stabilised, but its rate of increase has slowed as the deep oceans take up additional heat. Total global temperature therefore continues to rise as scientists would predict from the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

As to your predictions of a victory for common sense in the upcoming Australian election, history is fairly littered with examples of 180 degree shifts in “common sense” when reality hits home. That’s because most people are not insane, and will (eventually, and sometimes painfully) change their minds to accommodate the bleedin’ obvious.